Participatory Budgeting in Europe:
Potentials and Challenges
YVES SINTOMER, CARSTEN HERZBERG and ANJA RÖCKE
Abstract
The ‘transfer’ of participatory budgeting from Brazil to Europe has been a highly
differentiated process. In Porto Alegre, this innovative methodology enabled
democratization and social justice to be articulated. In Europe, participatory budgeting
relies on multiple procedures, and it is therefore necessary to give a clear
methodological definition of it so that cases can be coherently compared and ideal-types
constructed to understand the variety of concrete experiments. The six ideal-types we
propose (Porto Alegre adapted for Europe; representation of organized interests;
community funds at the local and city level; the public/private negotiating table;
consultation on public finances; proximity participation) show striking differences that
are highly influenced by existing participatory traditions. It is, above all, with the models
Porto Alegre adapted for Europe and community funds that an ‘empowered participatory
governance’ can develop and that a fourth power, beyond the three classical ones, is
developing — that of the citizenry when it directly (or through delegates) assumes a
decision-making power. However, other models have their strengths, too, for example
with regard to the reform of public administration which is a critical aspect in the search
for ‘another possible world’.
Participatory budgeting has been one of the most successful participatory instruments of
the past 15 years. Since it was invented in Porto Alegre (Brazil), it spread first in Latin
America, where probably more than 1,000 among the 16,000 municipalities had
introduced it by 2006 (Cabannes, 2006), and then over the entire globe. Participatory
budgets emerged simultaneously in seven, mainly Western, European countries.
Procedures are currently underway or are at a preliminary stage in four further countries.
Altogether, in 2008, there are more than 100 European cities with a participatory budget.
Among them are large cities, such as Seville in Spain, which has more than 700,000
residents and districts of the capital cities of Paris, Rome, Lisbon and Berlin (a first
attempt was also made in 2005 in London).
1
However, medium-sized cities, such as
Hilden and Emsdetten in Germany, and small communes, such as Grottamare or Altidona
in Italy,
2
have also adopted the procedure (see Figure 1).
1 London-Harrow: 211,000 residents; Paris-XX: 180,000 residents; Rome-XI: 140,000 residents;
Berlin-Lichtenberg: 252,000 residents.
2 Hilden: 56,000 residents; Emsdetten: 35,000 residents; Grottammare: 14,700 residents; Altidona
2,600 residents.
Volume 32.1 March2008 164–78 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x
© 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell
Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Research into participatory budgeting forms part of a larger field of interest in
democratic innovations, both theoretical and practical. That field contains a wide range
of participatory devices (consensus conferences, deliberative polls, citizen juries, etc.),
and a number of new concepts (empowered participatory governance, countervailing
power, participatory publics, fourth power, etc.). While participatory democracy and
deliberative democracy have been the two main basic theoretical frames that have
enabled the research, they have been interpreted in quite different ways. Some, following
Habermas (1996), have insisted, for example, on the conditions for a good participatory
deliberation; others, in a post-Marxist tradition, have focused on the importance of
participatory devices in and for social struggles. A comprehensive presentation is not
within the scope of this article, which will follow a more empirical path. Field research
on participatory experiments has, until now, followed three steps. In the first,
monographic analyses have been conducted of various cities and different procedures,
sometimes comparing two or three cases. In the second step, conferences and collective
books have allowed more experiments to be compared, but on the basis of field research
conducted with different methodologies and theoretical categories (Fung and Wright,
2003; Bacqué et al., 2005; Santos, 2005). Our present article will present some of the
results of a study that is part of a third step: we have conducted integrated research in
more than 20 cities, relying on the same methodology and the same concepts (Sintomer
et al., 2005).
3
3 Research for ‘Participatory budgeting in Europe’ has been conducted by the Centre Marc Bloch
in Berlin, in cooperation with the Humboldt University in Berlin and using funds from the
Hans-Böckler-Foundation and from the CNRS (France) (see www.buergerhaushalt-europa.de). We
have worked in ten different countries and extensive analyses were conducted between 2002 and
Participatory budgets
(2002)
Participatory budgets
(2000)
Participatory budgets
(2003)
Participatory budgets
(2005)
Source: Sintomer/Röcke/Herzberg: European participatory budgets
Figure 1 Participatory budgets in Europe 2005 (source: Sintomer et al., 2005)
Participatory budgeting in Europe 165
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.1
© 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation © 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Participatory budgeting was invented in a quite specific context. Once it has been
imported into and adapted for such different places as Seville (Spain), Berlin (Germany),
or Płock (Poland), can one still speak of one single (although complex) dynamic, or does
one have to state that the name tends to be the only common link, labelling quite different
realities? Is the expansion of participatory budgeting only a fashion, or a sustainable path
towards a new type of urban policy? What kinds of participatory budgets exist in Europe
and to what extent and under which conditions can they contribute to the modernization
of the administration, the renewal of democracy and the strengthening of social justice?
In the following, we will briefly describe the origins of participatory budgeting in Porto
Alegre, Brazil, and follow its path to Europe. We want to demonstrate that participatory
budgeting is not limited to one model. Rather, it may assume different forms. We will
subsequently present a typology of the various procedures that are used and discuss their
potential effects and limits. A broader analysis should engage with the social dynamics,
the normative frames and the relationship between representative and participatory
politics that are at stake and build another, more global, typology (Sintomer et al.,
forthcoming), but that is beyond the scope of this article. In conclusion, we will present
a few remarks on the potential and limits of participatory budgeting in Europe.
The idea of Porto Alegre
Participatory budgeting emerged in Brazil at the end of the 1980s in a context which
differs significantly from the situation in Western Europe — most notably because Brazil
is one of the countries in the world with the greatest income gap, and because in its
‘delegative democracy’ (O’Donnell, 1994) the constitutionally guaranteed democratic
institutions do not operate as intended, since politics and the administration are
characterized by corruption and clientilism. Especially at the local level, it is common for
leading politicians to be dependent on the economy and to purchase votes with money
and hollow promises. The city of Porto Alegre partly differs from this tradition. The
standard of living there is above the average of other Brazilian cities, and the
participatory budget has contributed to this circumstance. Moreover, it has provided for
a reversal of priorities: primary health care was set up in the living areas of the poor, the
number of schools and nursery schools was extended, and in the meantime the streets
were asphalted and most of the households have access to water supply and waste water
systems. What were the conditions that brought about this development, and how has
participatory budgeting rendered possible a more efficient government, a reallocation of
resources in favour of the most disadvantaged people and a democratization of politics?
Rebecca Abers (2000), one of the first observers of the participatory budget in Porto
Alegre, explains that it emerged due to a ‘window of opportunity’, which opened in the
aftermath of the electoral victory of the Labour Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores [PT]),
4
2005 in 20 cities. Basic data have been collected in more than 30 additional cities. The following
individuals participated in the project as associated researchers: Belgium: Ludivine Damay, Christine
Schaut; France: Marion Ben-Hammo, Sandrina Geoffroy, Julien Talpin; Great Britain: Jeremy Hall;
Italy: Giovanni Allegretti (coordinator), Pier Paolo Fanesi, Lucilla Pezzetta, Michelangelo Secchi;
Netherlands: Hugo Swinnen; Poland: Dorota Dakowska, Elzbieta Plaszczyk; Portugal: Luis Guerreiro;
Spain: Ernesto Ganuza.
4 The PT is a pluralist left-wing party which emerged from the 1970s trade union movement, which,
in particular in the industrial area surrounding São Paulo, fought with strikes against the
then dictatorship. Middle-class intellectuals, supporters of liberation theology, members of former
left-wing parties and extreme left groups as well as social movements in the cities and in the country
joined it. The Landless Peasants Movement was for a long time considered to be the group that was
most apt to activism amongst those supporting the party. While the main faction of the party can be
described as leaning toward social democracy, the PT in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, of which
Porto Alegre is the capital, stands more to the left.
166 Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg and Anja Röcke
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.1
© 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation © 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
in 1988. At the time the PT was at the beginning of its rise, and it had to prove that its
style of government stood out from that of the other parties. It was looking for a way of
translating the grassroots self-conception of the party into municipal politics. However,
it was not only the new government which pushed the participatory budget. Civil society,
in particular district initiatives, also demanded more co-decision-making capacity. The
invention of this new device was, therefore, the result of a conjunction of top-down and
bottom-up processes. The spoils system that exists in Brazil proved to be helpful in the
creation of this new space for citizen participation. It is important to underline that
participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre only slowly evolved into a new form of
participatory government. However, when the PT lost the office of mayor to the
opposition in 2004 after 15 years in power, the participatory budget had been integrated
to such an extent that the new government did not dare to abolish the procedure, even
though it has reduced its scope.
International scholars (Abers, 2000; Herzberg, 2001; Avritzer, 2002; Allegretti, 2003;
Baiocchi, 2005; Gret and Sintomer, 2005) have shown that three basic principles have
been particularly important in the setting-up and functioning of this procedure.
1 The first principle is grassroots democracy, carried into effect via citizens’ assemblies
in the 16 districts of the city. The aim of these assemblies is to determine priorities
and to elect delegates and representatives who follow up on the development of
suggestions put forward. In addition to investments, political guidelines for the design
of municipal policies on such issues as education, health, culture, etc are discussed.
Priorities are selected on the basis of the principle of ‘one man one vote’, so that every
citizen has the same number of votes at his or her disposal.
2 Social justice, the second principle, is realized via an allocation formula. The funds
which are at the disposal of each of the investment areas are distributed among the
districts, taking into consideration the number of residents and the quality of the
infrastructure available, as well as the local list of priorities. These three criteria
ensure, for example, that districts with a deficient infrastructure receive more funds
than areas with a high quality of life.
3 Citizen control, the third principle, is realized by means of boards, such as the Council
of the Participatory Budget, which convenes once a week for two hours. Its members
are elected during the basic assemblies of the districts. It is their duty to ensure that the
priorities of the districts are taken up in the budget to the largest extent possible.
Independent NGOs train the representatives of the participatory budget in order to
enable them to co-plan with the administration. In addition, the Council of the
Participatory Budget is involved in the allocation of public contracts.
Overall, even though some serious challenges had to be faced and were not
completely overcome (Gret and Sintomer, 2005), these three principles led to a real
empowerment of civil society and, most notably, of the working class. It is very
important to note that this achievement was due to a combination of a strong and
pragmatic political will on the part of the local government on the one hand, and of
bottom-up mobilization on the other side (Santos, 2005). In Brazilian cities where
participatory budgeting was simply a top-down process, Leonardo Avritzer has
demonstrated that the results have been very different (Avritzer, 2005; 2006). The Porto
Alegre experiment has implied an innovative participatory institution and a
‘countervailing power’, and this combination confirms what scholars have analysed in
other contexts as the preconditions for an ‘empowered participatory governance’ (Fung
and Wright, 2003). During a decade, civil society has been strengthened. More and more
citizens have joined initiatives and associations in order to present their suggestions
successfully in the process of participatory budgeting. Clientilistic structures were
largely overcome in these new organizations, because democratic and transparent rules
replaced negotiations behind closed doors. In addition, participatory budgeting has led to
a reorientation of public investments towards the most disadvantaged districts. This has
Participatory budgeting in Europe 167
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.1
© 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation © 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
come about because the process has been invested in mostly by the working class,
because it has permitted the formation of a ‘plebeian public sphere’ (Baierle, 2006: 127),
and because it has contributed to an improvement of public services and infrastructures.
Brazilian scholars have recently demonstrated with a convincing methodology that this
redistributive effect has characterized other important participatory budgets than Porto
Alegre’s (Marquetti et al., 2007).
Interestingly enough, in this very peculiar context, a procedural model has been
invented that, year after year, has been considered as a source of inspiration by other
cities. Four times, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005, the World Social Forum met in the Rio
Grande do Sul capital, and this has been a strong factor in the diffusion of participatory
budgeting. Since those years, Porto Alegre has become a symbol of a new type of more
participatory democracy. Very surprisingly, along with the anti-globalization movement,
international organizations which are far from ‘subversive’, such as the World Bank and
UN-Habitat (UNDP, 2001), have analysed Porto Alegre as an example of best practice
with regard to urban policies. The hundreds of other participatory budgets in Latin
America have had very different political, social and administrative outcomes, however
(Cabannes, 2003).
What is a participatory budget?
Any comparative research has to face a definition problem, which is even more difficult
with participatory budgeting in Europe where, in contrast to Latin America, very
different forms of citizen participation in the budget allocation procedure exist. In some
cases, the term ‘participatory budget’ refers merely to an informative event connected
with the budget without including consultation with the citizens. Other examples,
however, which are locally not referred to as ‘participatory budgets’, may feature
an intensive participation procedure. This is why one cannot rely on a ‘nominalist’
definition, based only on the denomination of the process as ‘participatory budgeting’, in
order to make a comparison possible. An ontological definition that would aim to define
what participatory budgeting should be, at any time and in any country, does not seem
legitimate, both because this procedure is different in Latin America and Europe and
because sociologists can hardly define the essence of a procedure or institution. A
political (or normative) definition would be possible, but is not the aim of this article. It
is therefore necessary to develop a methodological definition, which includes a set of
minimal requisites in order to clearly differentiate this participatory procedure from
others (such as neighbourhood funds) and which, at the same time, is comprehensive
enough to give sufficient leeway to procedures with different specificities.
Broadly speaking, participatory budgeting allows the participation of non-elected
citizens in the conception and/or allocation of public finances. In order to give a more
precise definition of the process, five criteria need to be added (Sintomer et al.,
forthcoming): (1) the financial and/or budgetary dimension must be discussed;
participatory budgeting involves dealing with the problem of limited resources; (2) the
city level has to be involved, or a (decentralized) district with an elected body and some
power over administration (the neighbourhood level is not enough); (3) it has to be a
repeated process (one meeting or one referendum on financial issues does not constitute
an example of participatory budgeting); (4) the process must include some form of
public deliberation within the framework of specific meetings/forums (the opening of
administrative meetings or classical representative instances to ‘normal’ citizens is not
participatory budgeting); (5) some accountability on the output is required.
Defined by these five criteria, participatory budgeting is a new and highly dynamic
process in Europe. Within five years, the number of participatory budgets increased from
6 in 2000 to 55 in 2005 and there are more than 100 experiments in 2008 (see Figure 2).
The number of city residents able to take part in a participatory budget has increased even
168 Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg and Anja Röcke
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.1
© 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation © 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
